Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 12981. November 6, 1918. ]

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, objectors-appellees, v. THE BARRIOS OF SANTO CRISTO, CONCEPCION and SAN JOSE, BALIUAG; SEGUNDO RODRIGO and AMBROSIO CRUZ, objectors and appellees. SILVESTRE BALAGTAS, DOMINGO N. CRUZ, and VICENTE N. SANTOS, objectors-appellant.

Hartigan & Welch for petitioner and Appellant.

Vicente Foz, for objector and appellant Silvestre Balagtas.

No appearance for the other appellants.

Delgado & Delgado, for objector and appellee Segundo Rodrigo.

Graciano T. Natividad, for objector and appellee Ambrosio Cruz.

No appearance for the other appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. REGISTRATION OF LAND; OWNERSHIP OF CHAPEL USED FOR RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. —The circumstance that a priest of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church has long been accustomed to hold services in a chapel does not prove title in the Archbishop, where it appears that the property was originally given by the founder to the inhabitants of the barrio for religious purposes and that the chapel is managed wholly by the congregation and supported by donations made by its members.

2. ID.; OPPOSITION; OPPONENT NEED NOT SHOW REGISTRABLE INTEREST IN HIMSELF. —The circumstance that an opponent in a land registration proceeding cannot show title in himself does not discapacitate him from opposing registration of the property in the name of the applicant. Nor is it even material for the opponent to have the legal character necessary to enable him to maintain a registration proceeding in his own name and behalf. The Land Registration Act enumerates the persons and entities in whose names registration can be effected, but there is no disposition of law limiting the right of opposition to particular classes of persons. All that is necessary to enable one to exert the faculty of opposition is that he should appear to have an interest in the property.

3. ID.; ID.; PERSONS EXERCISING MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY IN TRUST FOR OTHERS. —Persons invested with the management of property which has been donated to the inhabitants of a barrio are properly admitted to make opposition to a proceeding by the Archbishop to register the same.

4. RESERVATION; REGISTRATION OF PRIVATE CLAIMS; PROCEDURE. —In proceedings instituted pursuant to Sections 3, 4, and 5 of Act No. 627 to compel individuals claiming any interest in land included in a public reservation to present their claims within a stated period for registration in conformity with the provisions of the Land Registration Act, it is not necessary that the person concerned should appear and enter formal opposition in the reserve proceedings. The proper procedure is for him to file an independent original application in the Court of Land Registration.

5. ID.; ID.; ERRONEOUS DECLARATION IN RESERVE PROCEEDING. —A party who, within the time specified in Section 4 of Act No. 627, institutes an original proceeding to secure a Torrens title, to the property claimed by him, within the limits of a public reservation has a right to have the merits of his claim adjudicated in such registration proceeding; and an erroneous declaration made by the court in the reserve proceeding to the effect that no application has been presented and that the entire reservation is public land cannot operate to the prejudice of such applicant.


D E C I S I O N


STREET, J.:


On July 25, 1913, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila made application to the Court of Land Registration, for the registration of 550 parcels of land lying in the province of Bulacan. Various decisions respecting groups of parcels of these lands were rendered from time to time between November, 1914, and March, 1916. The present appeal involves questions relative to four of these decisions, the applicant being an appellant with respect to each, while the opponents, Silvestre Balagtas, Domingo N. Cruz, and Vicente N. Santos, have also appealed from so much of the last decision as disallows their oppositions. These various appeals will be dealt with in this opinion separately.

PARCELS 16, 18, 38, AND 39.

It appears that in the year 1881, Julian Buyson, imbued with religious fervor, constructed a chapel (visita) upon a lot belonging to himself in the barrio of Santo Cristo, in the municipality of Baliuag, province of Bulacan. Upon August 1, of the year mentioned, he donated this property for the use of the inhabitants of the barrio in their devotions. The document in which this donation was expressed is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I hereby declare that on this day the visita (chapel) of the Holy Christ was finally constructed; that, inasmuch as I am the only one who has been to any expense for its construction as well as the one who has bought the lot whereon it stands, I hereby transfer the ownership and possession of the said visita to all the residents of this barrio; that I make this as a donation inter vivos which none of my heirs can question, in view of the fact that this visita shall be consecrated to devotions and offerings in behalf of my soul; that this donation shall be for the benefit, firstly, of the Holy Christ and, secondly, of the residents of said barrio that they may hold Him as their Patron in their devotions; that the antechamber designed for public school purposes shall be at all times used as such; that the ownership of said visita and the lot whereon it is built shall belong to this barrio, without anybody being able to interfere with such ownership. I declare this to be the truth, and in witness thereof, I sign this document, this first day of August, eighteen hundred and eighty-one."cralaw virtua1aw library

About the same time a similar pious donation was made by the same donor in the barrios of Concepcion and San Jose. Parcel No. 16, in the plan, is the parcel situated in the barrio of Santo Cristo, included in the document of donation quoted above. Parcel No. 18, in the plan, covers the parcel donated to the barrio of Concepcion. Parcels 38 and 39, in the plan, comprise the parcels donated to the barrio of San Jose. In the original decision of March 31, 1915, no mention is made of lot 38; but the decision was afterwards amended, by agreement of the parties, so as to embrace parcel 38, this being in fact a part of the property donated to the barrio of San Jose.

The material facts relative to the property covered by these three gifts are fully and clearly stated in the opinion of the trial court, written by Judge M.V. del Rosario. We quote from this opinion as follows, omitting unnecessary citations of the exhibits upon which these findings are in part based:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The donation of each of these visitas (chapels) to the respective barrios having been made, the donor drew up the regulations governing the organization for the administration and possession of the visitas by the respective barrios, instituting therein an hermano mayor (person in charge), a steward, and a secretary, to be elected by the respective barrios, who should be in charge of the visita and be responsible therefor to the barrio, and who should also be responsible for the fostering of the religious devotion among the residents thereof.

"The organization mentioned in the foregoing paragraph having been constituted, and the visita having been administered by the hermano mayor, steward, and secretary of each barrio, the donor, during his lifetime, reserved to himself the right to inspect and attend to the preservation of the visitas and the fostering of the worship therein, giving to himself the title of honorary president of all the councils in the respective barrios.

x       x       x


"Since the date of the erection of the visita, in each barrio the hermano mayor, steward, and secretary, have collected the contributions given by the residents of each barrio, repaired the buildings, prepared the programs for the town festivals engaged a priest to say the mass, paying said priest or giving him alms for such service, been in charge of the keys of the chapel and had the chapel opened whenever mass was to be celebrated therein. The parish priest of Baliuag never took part in the elections of the hermanos mayores, stewards, and secretaries. No mass was celebrated in any of the visitas since their erection, without the knowledge, consent, and permission of the so called hermanos mayores, stewards, and secretaries. The witnesses for both the petitioner and the opponent are in accord as regards these facts.

"The chapel or visita, besides being used for religious service and devotion by the inhabitants of the respective barrios in the celebration of their catholic festivals, was also used as a public school for the benefit of each and all of the children in the respective barrios.

"The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church never kept its sacred ornaments for religious services or mass in each of the chapels. On the other hand, said ornaments brought by the priest requested to say the mass in each chapel, were taken back afterwards to the Parish Church of Baliuag.

"No mass was ever said in any of the chapels in question on holidays except when, by request, and with the knowledge, consent, and permission of the dignataries of the cofradia (brotherhood), fraternity, congregation, or trust duly organized in each barrio, a mass was therein celebrated during the festival in each barrio."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon these facts the trial court refused to register the parcels here in controversy in the name of the applicant, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila; and we are of the opinion that in so doing no error was committed. The case is in many respects similar to that involved in the controversy over the parcel 30, lot 13, in the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lipa v. Municipality of Taal (38 Phil. Rep., 367). We held in this case that the circumstance that a Catholic priest has held services in a chapel building for a long period at the request of the congregation does not prove title in the church, where it appears that the building was erected and maintained by the donations and contributions of the congregation.

We are unable to accept the proposition that the donation evidenced by the document executed by Julian Buyson in 1881, and other documents explanatory of the purposes of the donation executed later by him, prove a donation to the church. On the contrary, we think that the documents prove that the donor intended that the inhabitants of the barrio should be the beneficiaries of the gift, and that the officers elected in the manner stated in the trial court’s findings were intended to serve the function of trustees for the purpose of effectuating the purposes of the donation. The original document quoted above shows that the donation was made with a view to the benefit of the donor’s soul, but there is nothing to show that his soul was instituted as donee or beneficiary of the gift.

For the purpose of the determining whether the applicant is entitled to have this property registered in its name, it is wholly immaterial to consider whether the gift created a valid trust or was void for lack of certainty in the donee (article 650, Civil Code). The desire of the donor to perpetuate the sanctuary for all time does not supply a sufficient foundation upon which to base the conclusion that the real donee was the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church.

It is, however, insisted by the appellant that the court erred in permitting certain individuals, as representatives of the inhabitants of the barrios, to appear and oppose the registration of the parcels in question, and that the court also erred in recognizing the barrios as possessing a legal entity, and therefore, they could not, technically speaking, appear as a distinct personality in the registration proceedings. It is also clear that the testimony adduced in the case fails to prove the existence of a cofradia or hermanidad [brotherhood] in the various barrios. Still less does it prove that the property donated by Julian Buyson was vested in any such association; and at any rate it is apparent that the donations in question did not vest the property in any cofradia or hermanidad. These considerations, how ever, are in our opinion in no wise determinative of the case. The court, rightly, we think admitted certain inhabitants of the barrio, as persons interested in effectuating the intention of the donor to appear and oppose the application. The mere circumstance that an opponent cannot show title in himself such as would justify registration of the property in his own name, does not discapacitate him from opposing registration in the name of another. The Land Registration Law enumerates the persons and entities in whose names registration can be affected; but there is no disposition of law limiting the right of opposition to any particular class or classes of persons. All that is necessary to enable anyone to exert the faculty of opposition is that he should appear to have an interest in the property (Act No. 496, sec. 34); and it is immaterial whether this interest is in the character of legal owner or is of a purely equitable nature as where he is the beneficiary in a trust. It is the duty of the court in each case to register, or refuse to register, the title in the name of the applicant, according as the latter may or may not prove title in himself.

LOT 19 4. (BULACAN FISHERIES.)

This appeal refers to the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan rendered on June 23, 1915, in an opinion also written by Judge M. V. del Rosario, which excluded from the decree of registration a certain portion of land described in the petition as lot 194. Segundo Rodrigo, the opponent and appellee herein, presented opposition as to the inscription of the northeastern portion of the land, or the area comprised within the points numbered 13 to 95 on the plan accompanying the petition. The land claimed is found north o
Top of Page